#67. The Trembling-Network Theory of Everything [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact. 

I continue to mine the idea that the world of appearances is simulation-like, in that how we perceive it is strongly affected by the fact that our point of view is inside it, and illusions are rampant.

The slate-of-givens approach is intended to exploit consilience to arrive at a simplified physics that attributes as many phenomena as possible to historical factors and the observer's point of view. Simplified physics is viewed as a stepping-stone to the one, true TOE. The existence of widespread consilience implies that such exists.

The basic theory

The underlying reality is proposed to be a small-world network, whose nodes are our elementary particles and whose links ("edges" in graph theory) are seen collectively as the fields around those particles.

This network is a crude approximation to scale-free, but is structurally only a recursion of three generations (with a fourth in the process of forming), each comprised of two sub-generations, and not an infinite regress. The first generation to form after the big bang was a bunch of triangular networks that we call baryons. In the next generation, they linked up to form the networks underlying light atomic nuclei. These, and individual protons, were big enough to stably bond to single nodes (electrons) to form the network version of atoms. Above the atomic/molecular/electromagnetic level, further super-clustering took on the characteristics of gravitation, whose hallmark seems to be rotation. At the grandest cosmological scales, we may be getting into a fourth "force" that produces the foamy structure of galaxy distribution. The observations attributed to the presence of dark matter may be a sign that, at the intra-galactic scale, the nature of the "fields" is beginning to shift again.

I conjecture that throughout this clustering process, a continuous thermal-like agitation was running through all the links, and especially violent spikes in the agitation pattern could rupture links not sufficiently braced by other, parallel links. This would have been the basis of a trial-and error process of creation of small-world characteristics. The nature of the different "forces" we seem to see at different scales would be entirely conditioned by the type of clusters the links join at that scale, because cluster type would condition the opportunities for network stabilization by cooperative bracing. 

Reconciliation with known science

Formation and rupture of links would correspond to the quantum-mechanical phenomenon of wave-function collapse, and the endless converging, mixing, and re-diverging of the heat signals carried by the network would correspond to the smooth, reversible time-evolution of the wave-function between collapses. The experience of periodic motions would arise from resonances in closed paths embedded in the network. When you see the moon move across the sun in an eclipse, <11-27-2020: no net links are being made or broken; the whole spectacle somehow arises by an energetically balanced creation and rupture of links.>

The photoelectric effect that Einstein made famous can be given a network interpretation: the work function is the energy needed to simultaneously break all the links holding the electron to the cluster that is the electrode, and the observation of an electron that then seems to fly away from the electrode happens by calculation in the remaining network after it has been energized by heat-signal energy in excess of that needed to break the links, reflecting back into the network from the broken ends.

How distance would arise

All the ineffably large number of nodes in the universe would be equidistant from each other, which is possible if they exist in a topological space; such spaces have no distance measure. I think it likely that what you experience as distance is the number of nodes that you contain divided by the number of links connecting the cluster that is you with the cluster that you are observing. It remains to figure out how some of the concomitants of distance arise, such as delay in signal transmission and the cosmological redshift.

Reconciliation with the finite speed of light

11-01-2020: The time-delay effect of distance can be described by a hose-and-bucket model if we assume that all measurements require link breaking in the observer network. The energy received by the measuring system from the measured system is like water from a hose progressively filling a bucket. The delayed overflow of the bucket would correspond to the received energy reaching threshold for breaking a link in the observer network. The fewer the links connecting observer to observed relative to the observer size (i.e., the greater the distance), the slower the bucket fills and the longer signal transmission is observed to take.

11-02-2020: The above mechanism cannot transmit a pulsatile event such as a supernova explosion. It takes not one, but two integrations to convert an impulse into a ramp function suitable for implementing a precise delay. Signal theory tells us that if you can transmit an impulse, you can transmit anything. The second integration has already been located in the observer cluster, so the obvious place in which to locate the first integration is in the observed cluster. Then when the link in the observer cluster breaks, which is an endothermic event, energy is sucked out of both integrators at once, resetting them to zero. That would describe an observer located in the near field of the observed cluster. In the far field, the endothermic rupture would cool only the observer cluster; most of the radiative cooling of the observed cluster would come from the rupture of inter-cluster links, not intra-cluster links. Thus, hot clusters such as stars are becoming increasingly disconnected from the rest of the universe. This can account for the apparent recessional velocity of the galaxies, since I have conjectured that distance is inversely proportional to numbers of inter-cluster links.

Predictions of the fate of the universe

We often hear it said that the reason the night sky is black is that the expansion of the universe is continuously creating more space in which to warehouse all the photons emitted by all the stars. However, the network orientation offers a simpler explanation: inter-cluster links at the grandest scale are being endothermically destroyed to produce the necessary cooling, and the fewer these become, the longer the cosmological distances appear to be. I suppose that when these links are all gone, we all cook. The microwave background radiation may be a harbinger of this. Clearly, my theory favours the Big Rip scenario of the fate of the universe, but a hot Big Rip.

Accounting for the ubiquity of oscillations

05-01-2021: At this point, an improved theory of oscillations can be offered: Oscillating systems feature 4 clusters and thus 4 integrators connected in a loop to form a phase-shift oscillator. These integrators could be modeled as a pair of masses connected by a spring ( = 2 integrators) in each of the observer and observed systems ( = 2 x 2 = 4 integrators).

Motion and gravity

11-30-2020: Motion would be an energetically balanced breaking of links on one side of a cluster and making of links on the other. This could happen on a hypothetical background of spontaneous, random link making and breaking. Acceleration in a gravitational "field" would happen if more links are coming in from one side than the opposite side. More links will correspond to a stronger mutual bracing effect, preferentially inhibiting link breaking on that side. This will shift the making/breaking equilibrium toward making on that side, resulting in an acceleration. <12-11-2020: The universal gravitational constant G could be interpreted as expressing the probability of a link spontaneously forming between any two nodes per unit of time.>

Dimension and direction

01-13-2021: It is not clear how the direction and dimension concepts would emerge from a network representation of reality. If distance emerges from 2-way interactions of clusters, perhaps direction emerges from 3-way interactions and dimension arises from a power law of physical importance versus the number of interacting clusters in a cluster of clusters. This idea was inspired by the fact that four points are needed to define a volume, three are needed to define a plane, and two are needed to define a line.

02-13-2021: Alternatively, angle may be a matter of energetics. Assume that new links form spontaneously at an unalterable rate and only link rupture rate varies. The heat injected by link creation must be disposed of by a balanced rate of link rupture, but this will depend in detail on mutual bracing effects. If your rate of rupture of links to a given cluster is minimal, you will be approaching that cluster. The cluster with which your rupture rate is highest is the one you are receding from. Clusters with which you score average rupture rates will be 90 degrees off your line of travel. The distribution of clusters against angle is predicted from geometry and the appearance of the night sky to be proportional to sin(θ), but a random distribution of rupture rates would predict a bell curve (Gaussian) centered on the average rupture rate. Close, but no cigar. The tails of the Gaussian would produce a sparse zone both fore and aft. Moreover, since there must always be a maximum and minimum, you will always be heading exactly toward some cluster and exactly away from some other: not what we observe.

03-06,07-2021: That the universe is spatially at least three-dimensional can be reduced to a rule that links do not cross. Why the minimum dimensionality permitted by this rule is the one we observe remains to be explained. 

Momentum

Momentum can be explained by attributing it to the network surrounding a cluster, not to the cluster itself. Heat must flow without loss (how?) from in front of a travelling cluster around to the rear (I hope eventually to be able to purge this description of all its directional assumptions), suggesting closed flow-lines through the larger network reminiscent of magnetic field lines. (This is similar in outline to Mach's explanation of momentum, as being due to the interaction of the test mass with the distant galaxies.) It seems necessary to postulate that once this flow pattern is established, it persists by default. An especially large cluster in the vicinity will represent a high-conductivity path for the heat flow, possibly creating a tendency for links to form perpendicular to the line of travel and offset toward the large cluster, which might explain gravitational capture of objects into stable orbits. Finally, the overall universal law would be: heat of link formation = heat of link rupture + increases in network heat content due to increases in network melting point due to increases in mutual bracing efficiency. A simple concept of melting point is the density of triangles in the network. Still to be explained: repulsive forces.

Repulsive forces

04-04-2021: Repulsive forces are only seen with electromagnetism and then only after a local network has been energized somehow. When particles said to be oppositely charged recombine, neutral atoms are re-formed, which creates new triangles and thus increases melting point. The recombination of particles said to be of like charge creates relatively few triangles and is therefore disfavored, creating the impression of mutual repulsion.

 

More on the origin of momentum

Inter-cluster links are not individually bidirectional in their heat conductivity, but a (usually) 50:50 mixture of unidirectional links going each way. Momentum and spontaneous First Law motion become prevalent in classically-sized networks due to small imbalances in numbers of cluster A to cluster B links versus cluster B to cluster A links. This produces a random pattern of spontaneous heat flows across the universe. Converging flows burn out links (and are thus self-limiting) and diverging flows preserve links, causing them to increase in number locally. This process nucleates the gravitational clumping of matter. A directional imbalance in the interior of a cluster causes First Law motion by spontaneously transporting heat from front to back. Front and back are defined by differences in numbers of inter-cluster links (to an arbitrary external cluster) among subsets of cluster nodes.

Case study of a rocket motor

For a rocket motor to work, we have to assume that one of these asymmetrical links can only be burned out by heat applied to its inlet end. During liftoff, the intense heat down in the thruster chambers burns out (unidirectional) links extending up into the remainder of the craft. This leaves an imbalanced excess of links within the rocket body going the other way, leading to a persistent flow of heat downward from the nose cone. This cooling stabilizes links from overhead gravitationally sized clusters ending in the nose cone, causing them to accumulate, thereby shortening the "distance" from the nose cone to those clusters. Meanwhile, the heat deposited at the bottom of the rocket progressively burns out links from the rocket to the Earth, thereby increasing the "distance" between the rocket and the Earth. The exhaust gasses have an imbalanced excess of upward-directed asymmetric links due to the temperature gradient along the exhaust plume that serves to break their connection to the rocket and create the kind of highly asymmetrical cluster required for space travel. <04-11-2021: The details of this scenario all hang together if we assume that link stabilization is symmetrical with link burnout: that is, it is only responsive to what happens at the inlet (in this case, cooling).> Since kinetic energy is associated with motion, the directional link imbalance must be considered a form of energy in its own right, one not sensible as heat as usually understood.

Future directions

05-28-2021: To make further progress, I might have to assume that the links in the universal network are the real things and that the nodes are just their meeting places, which only appear to be real things because this is where the flow of energy changes direction. I then assume that all links are directional and that pairing of oppositely-directed links was actually the first step in the evolution of the universe. Finally, I decompose these directional links into an inlet part joined to an outlet part. With this decomposition, a link pair looks like this:

⚪⚫

⚫⚪

Notice the interesting ambiguity in how to draw the arrows. A purely directional link recalls the one-way nature of time and may represent undifferentiated space and time. A final decision was to treat a repulsive force as a link whose disappearance is exothermic, not endothermic, because this indirectly allows the formation of more of the default kind of link.

#33. Big-electron Theory [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

Some of the paradoxes and weirdness of quantum mechanics can be dispelled if we assume that any particle that can be diffracted isn't really there: we are only looking at the center of spherical symmetry of a much larger, possibly cosmologically large, wave function. Furthermore, this center of symmetry is only an abstraction, like the north pole of the Earth. Like the fields that we impute to them, quantum particles would have a wave function amplitude that decreases asymptotically to zero with distance from the center, and thus would have no well defined outer boundary. I shall denote this lack of an outer boundary by calling particles or wave functions "expansive."

Elementary particles seem submicroscopic in size because the wavelength of the corresponding wave functions is often submicroscopic, which imposes a requirement for the centers of symmetry of two such "particles" to coincide with very great precision before an interaction can be observed. This would be the case if the default interaction were characterized by destructive interference almost everywhere, which only switches over into constructive interference when the centers nearly coincide. An assumption needed for further development of this theory is that interaction is contingent on the development of expansive constructive interference. (In this post, I confine my attention to scattering-type interactions.)

The common presence of  accelerations in our universe combined with a finite speed of light might suggest that expansive wave functions would quickly fill up with incoherence, destroying their usefulness as explanatory causes. However, if there are no non-expansive elementary particles, we just have expansive interacting with expansive to produce every acceleration. Once you get entirely away from the tiny-electron idea, it is not at all clear that any incoherence could ever develop. Such may well occur to a limited extent under some conditions, however, but it may take more detailed mathematical treatments than I am prepared to carry out to characterize these conditions. One naturally suspects that Relativity theory is based on such limited incoherencies.

Two baffling kinds of experiment seem amenable to the big-electron treatment: diffraction of "particles" of matter like electrons, and entanglement experiments.

Electrons fired in a vacuum at a pair of closely-spaced slits, with a photographic plate situated on the other side of the slits, will produce a diffraction pattern on the developed plate consisting of alternating exposed and unexposed bands. These are interpreted as locations of constructive and destructive interference between "matter waves" emanating from the two slits under the stimulation of the electron beam. If the intensity of the beam is lowered to the point where only one electron is "in the chamber" at a time, thereby eliminating the possibility of inter-electron interactions inside the chamber, the diffraction pattern develops just as before. It merely takes longer. Now here's the weird part: all this could happen only if each electron goes through both slits at once! This is truly weird if we try to use the traditional tiny-electron picture, but much easier to visualize using the big-electron picture.

Entanglement of two particles that persists over distances measured in kilometers is also easier to understand if we remember that the experimental apparatus is itself made up of expansive wave functions and is therefore mostly overlapped with the two particles being studied throughout the experiment.

If all this is true, we live in a vast web of inter-validating illusions called the particle model.

#30. The Russian-dolls--multiverse Part I [physics]

Matryoshka/pupa

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

6-03-2017

I usually assume in these pages that the space we live in has an absolute frame of reference, as Newton taught, and which Einstein taught against. Not only that, but that this frame of reference is a condensate of some sort, rather like the water that a fish swims in.

I also assume that the divide-and-conquer strategy that has served science so well thus far can blithely continue with the (conceptual) dis assembly of this space into its constituent particles. At that point the question arises if these particles are situated in yet another space, older and larger than ours, or if you go direct to spacelessness, where entities have to be treated like Platonic forms. In the former case, one wonders if that older, larger space in turn comes apart into particles situated in a still older and larger, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

I am told that infinities are the death of theories. Nevertheless, let us hold our noses and continue with the Russian Dolls idea, merely assuming that the nesting sequence is not infinite and will not be infinite until the entire multi verse is infinitely old, because the "dolls" form one by one, by ordinary gravitational collapse, from the outside in.

What, exactly, is it that collapses? Call them wave functions, following quantum mechanics. In the previous post, we see that wave functions are slightly particle-like in having a centre of symmetry. In the outermost space, previously called #, the wave crests always move at exactly the speed of light.

7-14-2017

This speed is not necessarily our speed of light, c, but more likely some vastly greater value.

6-03-2017

The space-forming particles of # are themselves aggregates with enough internal entropy to represent integers and enough secondary valences to form links to a set of nearest neighbors to produce a network that is a space. This space acts like a cellular automaton, with signals passing over the links to change the values of the stored integers in some orderly way. The wave functions are the stereotyped, stable figures that spontaneously develop in the automaton out of the initial noise mass left over from catastrophic gravitational collapse, or some abstract, spaceless equivalent. 

Gravity would enter as a geometric effect; impossible at 1D, poorly developed at 2D, commonplace but commonly stalled at extended systems in 3D, and irresistible at 4D and higher (The latter conclusion is based on an anthropic argument in "The Universe in a Nutshell", by Steven Hawking). 

Finally, assume that the dimensionality of a space increases steadily over time, suggesting that the number of links emanating from each node in the underlying network increases slowly but surely. Macroscopically, this dimensionality increase could look something like protein folding. This does not yet explain gravity, a task for another day&&, but static nonlinearities in the automaton's representation system may be involved.*

To facilitate discussion, let us label the Russian-dolls universes from the outside in, in the sequence 1, 2, 3,...etc, and call this number the "pupacity" of a given frame of reference. (From the Latin "pupa," meaning "doll.") Let us further shorten "pupacity" to "p" for symbol-compounding purposes. Thus, the consecutively labelled spaces can be referred to as p1 (our former "#"), p2, p3,... etc.

A final, absolutely crucial assumption is that pn can exhibit global motions ("n" is some arbitrary pupacity), such as rotation, in the frame of reference of p(n-1). Yes, we are talking here about a whole, damned universe rotating as a rigid unit. Probably, it can drift and vibrate as well.

Now, by the assumptions of the previous post, these global motions must be subtracted from the true, outer, speed-of-light speed of the wave crest to produce its apparent speed and direction when seen from within pn. Thus, the universe's love of spinning and orbiting systems of all sizes is explained: a spinning, global-motion vector is being subtracted from the non-spinning, outermost one. As the0-pupacity of our frame of reference increases, more and more of these global vectors are being subtracted, causing the residual apparent motion to get progressively smaller. We would assume under current physics that the wave functions are acquiring more and more mass, to make them go slower and slower, but mass is just a fiction in the scenario presented above. However, the reliance of current physics on the mass construct is a golden opportunity to determine the pupacity of planet Earth.

It is three.

Three, because physics knows of three broad categories of particle mass: the photon, leptons, and baryons. The photon would be native to p1, leptons, such as electrons and positrons, would be native to p2, and baryons, such as protons and neutrons, would be native to p3, our own, dear home in the heavens. 

01-09-2019: it is an interesting coincidence that our pupacity equals the dimensionality of our space. Are dimensionality and pupacity linked during cosmological evolution?&&

6-03-2017

Some interpretations follow. The positron atom would be a standing-wave pattern made up of oppositely rotating wave functions, an electron and a positron, both native to p2. A neutron would be exactly the same thing, but native to p3. Note that both are unstable in isolation.

How is it that we observers in p3 can even detect electrons, say, if those are not native to p3? Because p2 is necessarily older than p3 and has had more time to develop extra dimensions. This will give p3 thin dimensions when seen in the frame of reference of p2, and it is along these thin dimensions that the electrons of p2 approach our own, native protons closely enough to participate in our p3 physics.

Neutron stars would be p4, but I haven't figured out black holes. Just big p4s?

*6-05-2017

or an amplitude-speed coupling.

#29. My Second Theory of Everything [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

This post comes from considering how wavelike, low-frequency light becomes particle-like, high-frequency light as frequency is smoothly increased. Waves are continuous, whereas particles are discontinuous; how, then, does the breakup occur?

You have to put the source in the picture. Recoil of the source atom sends the wave function off in a specific direction, but the wave function is known to expand (about its center of symmetry?) as it goes. Presumably, it is the vector sum of these two motions that must equal the speed of light; either one is presumably free to take on some lower speed, say, that of a pitched softball. I conjecture that as frequency increases, the particle-like drift of the center progressively dominates the mixture at the expense of the local, wave-like expansion of the wave function about its center. This is how I see waves morphing into particles as the frequency increases. 

These ideas suggest the existence of a unique, watershed frequency at which both motions are equal, and equal to one-half the speed of light when the vectors are aligned. I suspect that this frequency lies in the terahertz range, between radar frequencies and the far infrared, partly on the basis that this seems to be the last part of the electromagnetic spectrum to find technological use. The non-dominance of either the particle or the wave model in this range may translate into a perfect storm of undesirable properties. That comment about the softball, however, suggests the possible existence of easy, classroom experiments with these frequencies that illustrate wave-particle duality.

These considerations brought me to the following set of TOE assumptions, some from relativity theory, some in apparent contradiction of it, and some from quantum mechanics:

• There is an absolute frame-of-reference, which I shall call "#."
• All motions seen in this frame of reference will be observed to occur at the speed of light (c); no more, but no less, and only this frame of reference has this property.
• All speeds lower than c are illusions caused by the motion of the observer's frame of reference.
• That which moves always at c is not a wave function, but a phase marker of some sort within it, such as a zero crossing or a wave crest.
• The local wave function evolution relative to its center of symmetry combined with the drift of that center relative to # always travels at c relative to #.
• If local evolution is an expansion along all wave function radii, you have light; if it is a rotation about the center of symmetry (i.e., motion perpendicular to radii), you have matter.
• Light wave functions will be like nested spherical shells, whereas matter wave functions will have a lobar, angle-dependent structure like a p-, d-, or f-orbital in theoretical chemistry. The lobes are essential to provide a contrast pattern that could, in principle, be observed to spin.
• The presence of one axis of rotation produces the neutrino; two simultaneous axes of rotation produce the mesons; three produce the remaining stable particles, e, p, and n. If the three rotational rates are distinguishable, the resulting structure has a handedness.
• The matter/antimatter dichotomy arises from this handedness, when combined with a law of conservation of spin that would result from space initially being symmetrical. 
• The mesons should have an ability in 3-space to flip over into their corresponding antiparticles.

#26. The Phasiverse [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

3-29-2017

I will be arguing here that our reality, the world of appearances, is encoded in the relative phases of an ineffably large number of oscillators, each of which is a kind of primitive clock.

An early interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics was that there is a harmonic oscillator somehow assigned to each point in space, and that these account for the matter fields of the universe. Examples of such oscillators (the definition is abstract and mathematical), unsuitable for easy, weekend universe creation, would be masses bouncing up and down on springs, and electronic devices called tank circuits, which are just one capacitor connected across the terminals of one inductor, plus taps on the inductor for getting the energy in. (I am thinking here of the Hartley oscillator, of which I built half a dozen as a teenager.)

If a bunch of such oscillators can communicate with each other (exchange oscillatory energy), this is called coupling, and it can make the oscillators tend to pull each other in to the same, common phase. The Huygens's clocks experiment begins with two old-school pendulum clocks in a case with their pendulums swinging in some random phase relationship. The next day,  mysteriously, the pendulums will always be found swinging in opposite directions. The coupling is evidently due to tiny, rhythmic forces travelling through the common case from clock to clock.

If the coupling is positive, as assumed here, (it's negative in the above experiment), the phase pull-in effect becomes stronger the closer the two phases approach each other, causing a positive feedback effect. This is very reminiscent of Hebb's rule in neuroscience and the tendency of natural attractive forces such as gravity to depend inversely on distance. I have already offered Hebb's rule in these pages as an abstract rule of attraction and binding in a scheme for polymerizing spaceless but noisy "time lines" into a three dimensional network that approximates the space we live in. However, oscillators make better space-forming entities than these "time lines" on a number of counts.

First of all, the phase pull-in effect alluded to above provides a simple answer to questions such as where the organizing principle comes from. All you need to explain is where the oscillators themselves all came from, how they oscillate, and why they are coupled. Since the oscillators begin life in spacelessness, it is hard to see how they could avoid interacting to produce a coupling effect. Second, oscillators need no past or future; they can arise as a succession of causally related nows that alternates between two contrasting forms. (Since we haven't gotten as far as space yet, these would have to be abstract, spaceless entities that smack of yin and yang.) Figures in Conway's game of Life would seem to be examples of this alternation.

What is the time required for such an alternation? The question is meaningless; they just do it. With no past or future, the special status of the present becomes self-explanatory, alleviating some of the cognitive dissonance that goes with the concept of a unified space-time. This space-time, and the even more bizarre idea that it is warped by mass-energy as if embedded in an even higher-dimensional space, starts to look like a device to visualize one's way to solutions to problems that have their origin in unvisualizable spacelessness.

A great many oscillators all with the same phase is not an interesting universe. However, suppose this is impossible because of "train wrecks" happening during the synchronization process that produce frustration of the synchronization analogous to spin frustration in spin glasses. An example would be a cyclic relationship of oscillators in which a wave goes around the loop endlessly. Such cycles may correspond to particles of matter in our universe, and the spiral waves that they would throw off into surrounding space may correspond to the fields around such particles.

A black hole or galaxy would be surrounded by a tremendous number of such radiating fields. The resulting desychronization of the oscillators making up the surrounding space would increase the average phase difference between phasically nearby oscillators, thereby inhibiting their coupling, thereby inhibiting the travel of signals generally through the region. Result: the speed of light is reduced in the vicinity, resulting in the bending of light rays, called gravitational lensing. Notice how easily we derive an effect that formerly required General Relativity.

The next level of description deals with where the oscillators come from.

4-23-2017

Let us jettison the particle model altogether at this point and assume the universe to be made of the waves themselves, with no need for generating objects. These waves might have a tendency to synchronize as a fundamental given. If it is not fundamental, maybe the explanation for it can safely be left to a future generation of physicists. (The image I get at this point is of a series of temporary camps struck during the ascent of some stupendous mountain, for step-wise consolidation of gains, with the grail of the TOE located at the summit.)

As a second thread of this argument, I note that some of the phenomena characteristic of quantum theory can be explained as due to the practicalities of representing functions like waves, practicalities that are always in your face when programming a computer, but never mentioned in the physics I have read so far. In programming, you have to define memory space for all variables, which is always, ultimately, an integer or a set of integers, with both a maximum and a minimum (nonzero) amount that can be represented.

Quantization could be due to the presence of small quantities comparable in size to the value of the least significant bit of an integer-like entity. (Deprecated, Part 4)

#20. The Two-clock Universe [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The arrow of time is thought to be thermodynamic in origin, namely the direction in which entropy (disorder of an isolated system) increases. Entropy is one of the two main extensive variables of thermodynamics, the other being volume. I would like to propose that since we live in an expanding universe, the direction of cosmological volume increase makes sense as a second arrow of time; it's just not our arrow of time.

One of the outstanding problems of cosmology is the nature of dark energy, thought to be responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the Hubble expansion. Another problem is the nature of the inflationary era that occurred just after the Big Bang (BB), introduced to explain why the distribution of matter in the universe is smoother than predicted by the original version of the BB.

Suppose that the entropy of the universe slowly oscillates between a maximal value and a minimal value, like a mass oscillating up and down on the end of a spring, whereas the volume of the universe always smoothly increases. Thus, entropy would trace out a sinusoidal wave when plotted against volume.

If the speed of light is only constant against the entropic clock, then the cosmological acceleration is explainable as an illusion due to the slowing of the entropic increase that occurs when nearing the top of the entropy oscillation, just before it reverses and starts down again. The cosmological volume increase will look faster when measured by a slower clock.

The immensely rapid cosmological expansion imputed to the inflationary era would originate analogously, as an illusion caused by the slowness of the entropy oscillation when it is near the bottom of its cycle, just after having started upward again.

These ideas imply that entropy at the cosmological scale has properties analogous to those of a mass-and-spring system, namely inertia (ability to store energy in movement) and stiffness (ability to store energy in fields). The only place it could get these properties appears to be from the subatomic particles of the universe and their fields. Thus, there has to be a hidden network of relationships among all the particles in the universe to create and maintain this correspondence. Is this the meaning of quantum-mechanical entanglement and quantum-mechanical conservation of information? However, if the universe is closed, properties of the whole universe, such as a long circumnavigation time at the speed of light, could produce the bounce.

These ideas also imply the apocalyptic conclusion that all structures in the present universe will be disassembled in the next half-period of the entropy oscillation. The detailed mechanism of this may be an endothermic, resonant absorption of infrared and microwave photons that have circumnavigated a closed universe and returned to their starting point. Enormous amounts of phase information would have to be preserved in intergalactic space for billions of years to make this happen, and here is where I depend heavily on quantum mechanical results. I have not figured out how to factor in the redshift due to volume expansion.&&